Thanks for the screenplay link. If you backtrack the website address, you will also find the screenplay for Arrival.

I thought this was a beautiful film. I have it at #2 of my favorite 2016 films right now.I saw this and The Revenant for the first time within a 24 hour period. Both films transport you to another time, and both can be brutal at times.

SPOILERS

I thought it was a cool choice to start the film with the sound of crickets, then the title came up and they cut the sound. Then the crickets come back at the end titles. The final shot was a surprise. I'm trying to think of final shot reveals that Scorsese has done. The rat at the end of The Departed comes to mind. I don't know how I feel about the inquisitor being so "goofily" played. Maybe this type of behavior is part of that culture that I don't understand as an American.

Falters every now and then and has a bit of a shaky start but it just gets more and more compelling as the film continues. Some truly different directing work here and once again I'm torn over Schoonmaker's editing.

I think this is a movie that would be interesting through the lenses of many other filmmakers. Apparently, the author of the original novel was someone who struggled with his Catholic faith, the same as Scorsese- though perhaps in a different manner. So other interpretations would be cool. The book's been on my reading list for a while, I definitely want to give it a go and see if and how Scorsese diverges from it (I hear it's pretty darn faithful though).

Leading into SEMI-SPOILERS:

Regardless, we still got a film that is complex in its approach to its faith. By the end, it offers some form of conclusion that may or may not affirm /validate the suffering of the protagonists but it doesn't entirely seem like a simple (or easily earned) conclusion. While the idea of the 'silence of god' is crucial, I was really interested in the ideas of the context of religion- talks about the swamps and roots. In the absence of proper religious instruction, a faith evolves and changes, absorbing qualities of local traditions and ultimately a misunderstanding of the faith itself and its principles. It was great how the confusion over reinterpreting faith and doing the right thing according to your beliefs seemed very human and very real. Scorsese (once again) manages to moralise in a non-preachy way. No black or white, no easy answers.

I don't know how I feel about the inquisitor being so "goofily" played. Maybe this type of behavior is part of that culture that I don't understand as an American.

I'm kinda glad he was. The film was very serious and he provided something that was amusing and yet unsettling. There's an air of politeness and intellectual respect mingling with sinisterness, brutality and injustice from the antagonistic forces in the film.

Unrelated- there's a shot where the Inquisitor looks like he's physically deflating and shrinking. I was so surprised by it that I was half-expecting something hallucinatory or supernatural to happen.

Some truly different directing work here and once again I'm torn over Schoonmaker's editing.

I think this is a movie that would be interesting through the lenses of many other filmmakers. Apparently, the author of the original novel was someone who struggled with his Catholic faith, the same as Scorsese- though perhaps in a different manner. So other interpretations would be cool.

The more and more I think about this film, the more and more I admire it (maybe it's the story, because it's a bloody exceptional story) but looking back, I think Scorsese is a weird director for this stylistically. Scorsese has experience with period dramas and religion-themed movies but some of the movie feels really bizarre at times in regard to the directing/editing. Despite the seemingly odd pairing of content and filmmaker, it still succeeds.

Has anyone seen the Shinoda film? There are some superb scenes in this film, and without seeing the Endo/Shinoda version or reading the novel I don't feel it's right to say this, but part of me thinks that the definitive version of this story is yet to exist.

I've seen it twice and admire it deeply. This is a film with high ambitions and I gotta say it's a grower. What it does in terms of conveying an inner spiritual struggle with such strong cohesivness is something to enjoy and admire. There are plenty of inspired moments of quiet transcendence (what about that brief yet powerfull completely silent bit when one of the japanese sees the crucifix and is moved to tears by it's sight?). But this is no picnic. And to be honest I'm still struggling with Andrew Garfield's performance, which is not really only a performance problem but a direction problem (I guess). Maybe that's the point, but all three main characters in Scorsese's religious pictures (Last temptation, Kundun and this) are so involved, or should we say self involved in their spiritual and faith related inner struggles that you can't get to know them at all outside of them. In the rest of Scorsese's filmography, personality traits and character idiosyncrasies always nurture the total portrait of these human beings, but not so with Jesus, the Dalai Lama and father Rodrigues. The thing is that the first two are religious icons, and their mystic nature may be justified, while Rodrigues is a "normal" human being, yet I don't know if he is insecure, if he has a sense of humor; he's dead set on this faith mission, and barely utters a word about anything else.

Experience tells me this perception will not change, and that this is the way the character and the film are constructed. It's a bit of a shame if that's it, cause when Liam Neeson appears, he injects a lot of gravitas to his character, and he manages to give more layers to HIS dilemma than Garfield does. However, the film is too dense and packs too much for me to be able to say with all certainty that any of this is set in stone. I'll have to see it a couple more times to re evaluate.